Folding Forum

Posted: **Sun Dec 13, 2009 5:10 pm**

http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/6415/lostpoints1.png Click on URL please. Why won't the whole Immage post if I use direct link

Posted: **Sun Dec 13, 2009 10:39 pm**

Maybe you could try scaling the image down to what it will display if you can calculate at what pixel column the graphic is cropped. Can't we use HTML code, or are we restricted to BB code only? I haven't tried (or needed) to use HTML on the Folding Forum.

Didn't they tell us the points were lost (in spite of your excellent tracking)? I have a post where I used PRCG ID and was basically told it was pointless, if you'll pardon the pun.

All were reported to server 171.67.108.24

1. Project 2671, Run 50, Clone 62, Gen 127 @ 05:09:08, 09/11/10 (y,m,d)
2. Project 2671, Run 24, Clone 82, Gen 128 @ 15:07:07, 09/11/10
3. Project 2671, Run 43, Clone 12, Gen 128 @ 03:12:12, 09/11/11
4. Project 2671, Run 43, Clone 08, Gen 129 @ 13:07:29, 09/11/11
5. Project 2671, Run 21, Clone 10, Gen 129 @ 02:21:05, 09/11/12

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=12264

Posted: **Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:33 am**

I don't see why it should be pointless. I have shown them proof of what I turned in and proof of what they gave me the 2 are not even close. I went back and looked at some of those who said shut up and deal with it. None of them lost any points they actually looked like they got back more points than they lost. Including 7im. Only a few of us lost very many points as far as I am concerned the rest can stuff it.

Posted: **Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:08 am**

You have not shown proof. You have shown an average. To show proof, you would need to show logs each saying the project( run, clone, gen) with the associated thank you for your results for each and every work unit. If you actually supplied log proof of returning the WU's I would see no rational for not giving you appropiate credit.

Those logs could be then compared against what was credited. the problem is that the particular server that went down, also killed off its records of what was credited/returned. Stanford, then did a statistical analysis, and credited people based on that. That is as good as they could do in that situation.

They have declared that they are done with it. They are going to do no more. Sorry you feel that it was not enough. No one here can give you any further remedy. To go any further, PM Vijay Pande.

Posted: **Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:04 am**

If that is not enough then I will down size the screen shot or make another one that shows the WU # ie 5741 etc. Pande said they lost the user not the WU all they have to do is check the time it was returned and the # if they did not loose them do you think I am able to get into there servers and get that info. Bruce said show proof I have and will supply the numbers if the need them.

Posted: **Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:59 am**

You need to specifiy the project (Run, clone, Gen) for each WU returned.

Posted: **Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:02 pm**

Posted: **Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:06 pm**

I was of forum when this happend so I am not totally up to date with the discussion but what I do know is:

For any recrediting to take place, both prcg and the log snippet showing 'Thank you for you contribution' are needed.

The above list does not fill both requirements, how are they supposed to recredit any points lost due to a server outage?

Posted: **Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:43 pm**

By checking the # P5747 Completed 11/11/09 @ 8:02 A.M. Run 0/Clone 11/ Gen 620 VJ said they did not loose the WU,s they just lost who did them, So if they have a record of the WU they can check. You know as well as I do that I do not have aces to the servers so how in the hell would I be able to say I did WU P5747 Run 0/Clone 11/ Gen 620 and Completed it on 11/11/09 @ 8:02 A.M. if it was not so. What the hell is wrong with our society that a person can show what they have done and people choose to insinuate that they are being deceitful. Stanford had a screw up, you don't just say oo-well you fix it to the best of your ability, I have shown what I did on those days and what I received as an adjustment there is a pretty big spread between the two. as VJ said most people got credit for there work some even got more but some got less. I am one of the few who got less an do have a record of it. I have provided the info now lets see what happens.

Posted: **Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:48 pm**

Nono don't get me wrong grandpa_01 I am NOT saying you're deceitful, I only questioned how you expected them to recredit you.

As it will mean not only you, but anyone who comes with a claim of having done xxxx wu then and then! The problem is, now you posted your results, don't you think there will be some low life scumbag who just copies your prcg's and time's and posts he done them not you? You can't proof it without log snippets, as I understand the assignment server's record of which donor got assigned which wu also isn't going to help so it just seems impossible to give an actual recredit based on the really submitted wu's.

Posted: **Mon Dec 14, 2009 3:36 pm**

Well now I know what has happend to our society. DAMM SCUMBAGS

Posted: **Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:28 pm**

Again, as said before:

Supply project (Run, Clone, Gen) for every WU that you claim was not properly credited. The pretty charts that do not supply the required Project( Run, Clone, Gen) data don't help anyone get you your points.

That data will be contained in your logs so you can supply it, if you so choose. Supply the logs for the appropriate time period, if you can't tease the specific data out of them. Without that specific data, no one can look up a WU to see if it was credited or not. Don't blame others because you won't properly document your claims.

Posted: **Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:34 pm**

Thinking abit longer about this, Grandpa didn't supply the log snippets but as he stated the info he nicely put into the diagram should be it's own proof. There is no way anyone could know he completed wu xxxx at xx:xx time on x

x date without having the log files.

But as I understand it, there is no point in asking for a recredit for every person, as I read it the 'projected' recredit already done was the end of it. If it's fair, no it's not. If I'm wrong about the above info not being sufficient proof then what would be? Anyone can fabricate log snippets as long as they seen a few, those are not proof any more then what Grandpa already provided.

You know, it was a bad decission on my side to post in this thread when I been of the forums when the manner at hand occured, I am not fully aware of what's been said and done so I am not in the position to comment/correct/offer any ideas..

Sorry Grandpa, you where right, you provided the info, it's up to them now

Posted: **Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:47 pm**

P5-133XL just who are you do you presume to answer for Stanford.

The logs only containe the last 10 WU's by the time Stanford admited to loosing the info those logs were long gone, And I reboot almost daily which means there is even less information in them.

Posted: **Mon Dec 14, 2009 7:06 pm**

Grampa,

I am one of many people here that help others. I am simply giving you Stanford's already clear response to this issue: They are done crediting for that problem. You want something more, then supply the data needed -- You have it in your logs, they don't. If you can't then it's done and all you are doing is whining. There is good reason, the original thread was locked.

VijayPande wrote:I just wanted to give some info here. The recredit is finished. As noted in my blog, this one was much tricker than ever before, since (for the first time in almost 10 years) the flaw was in the stats server itself. During the time that the stats server was down, we did receive the completed WUs (the scientific data on the work servers) but we lost the data that associates that PRCG with the donor who uploaded it. For this reason, we had to statistically estimate, based on previous WUs, what the lost WUs were. Our thinking was that an approximation, based on the data we had, was better than no credit at all. However, this clearly has limitations and flaws and couldn't go as smoothly as previous stats recredits had in the past.

The issues with that server prompted me to upgrade the hardware (it's fairly old now -- over 5 years old) and the switch over to new hardware will help prevent this particular issue from happening again. I'm sorry for the problems here; I understand how critical points are to how FAH works and it pains me to see this sort of problem associated with FAH. However, we did the best we could with the data we had and have a plan to try to avoid this particular flaw from happening in the future, although it will take some time for new hardware to come and for us to transition over. My hope is that this will be completed some time in January 2010.

I'm very sorry for the hassles and problems here. Unfortunately, there isn't any more we can do about this incident, other than make plans to work to avoid this particular problem from happening again.

If you want further credit without giving the Project (Run, Clone, Gen) just go to Vijay Pande. He's the one with the keys to the stats server and can actually do something.

Folding Forum

Can I have my points pretty please ?

Can I have my points pretty please ?

Re: Can I have my points pretty please ?

Re: Can I have my points pretty please ?

Re: Can I have my points pretty please ?

Re: Can I have my points pretty please ?

Re: Can I have my points pretty please ?

Re: Can I have my points pretty please ?

Re: Can I have my points pretty please ?

Re: Can I have my points pretty please ?

Re: Can I have my points pretty please ?

Re: Can I have my points pretty please ?

Re: Can I have my points pretty please ?

Re: Can I have my points pretty please ?

Re: Can I have my points pretty please ?

Re: Can I have my points pretty please ?